Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

radioweather writes "Solar physicists have been waiting for the appearance of a reversed-polarity sunspot to signal the start of the next solar cycle. As of Friday, that wait is over. A magnetically reversed, high-latitude sunspot emerged on the surface of the sun. Just a few months ago, an 'All Quiet Alert' had been issued for the sun. This reversed-polarity sunspot marks the beginning of the sun's return back to Solar Maximum.
Solar Cycle 24 has been the subject of much speculation due to competing forecasts on whether it will be a highly active or a quiet low cycle. If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of validity for some CO2 based global warming theories. Only time will tell."

Reversed Polarity is just change from + to - or south to north. Nothing magical about it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle [wikipedia.org]The physical basis of the solar cycle was elucidated in the early twentieth century by George Ellery Hale and collaborators, who in 1908 showed that sunspots were strongly magnetized (this was the first detection of magnetic fields outside the Earth), and in 1919 went on to show that the magnetic polarity of sunspot pairs:

* is always the same in a given solar hemisphere throughout a given sunspot cycle;
* is opposite across hemispheres throughout a cycle;
* reverses itself in both hemispheres from one sunspot cycle to the next.

Everyone knows that the last time there was some kind of reversal of polls on the Earth, the entire world lost electrical power for thousands of years and the whole planet was shattered into pieces!! We're lucky that gravity pulled it all together again and that electricity was discovered by Thomas Jefferson a few hundred years later. I think this is a sign of the creator's anger because we're all talking about man having come from monkeys instead of the real truth of Intelligent Design. It's a warning. If we don't get evolution theories out of the schools and replaced with science fact soon, he'll make more reversed spots on the sun and it will shatter into pieces. I don't think we'll survive that this time.

That's why they started using the new term "climate change". If it gets cooler, they'll say "see, the climate is changing". They'll come up with some weather model that predicts a short-term cooldown but a long term warming. Either that or they'll use a different set of data to say that the warming is happening and that cooling is an illusion.

Just watch, when billions are at stake, dis-crediting will prove incredibly difficult.

There is no good scientific evidence linking MMR to autism, or even decent circumstantial evidence supporting such a link. Most of the experiments claiming to indicate such a link have been thoroughly discredited, and the theories claiming to explain the possible cause and effect are mostly junk, too. Case in point: you posted a link to a video about thiomersal, a mercury-based compound used in some vaccines (presumably thiomersal, anyway, as I only read the blurb to verify it was the standard "evil mercury

Brace yourself for a propaganda deluge from climate change denialists now that solar activity IS actually increasing (at least as part of its usual cycle). Never mind that solar activity has trended downwards [royalsociety.org] since 1980, and yet we have experienced the most significant GLOBAL warming since then, including the shocking drop [youtube.com] in arctic sea ice this fall. Climate change denialists know no shame.

No, honestly, if there is data showing a trend in upper level clouds, and a theory that explains climate change in terms of solar magnetic flux, I'd love to hear it. You're saying decreased solar heat output means decreased solar magnetic flux, an increase in high level clouds which trap more heat than they reflect, and that the resultant increase in temperature more than offsets the temperature loss from decreased solar output, is that it? Fascinating. You sound quite educated in physics, astrophysics, and

Perhaps you should ACTUALLY READ the article [royalsociety.org] I linked to. That article, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A by Mike Lockwood of Rutherford Appleton Laboratories (ever heard of Rutherford?) discounts ANY significant solar influence on the warming that has occurred since 1980. The article gives data on both absolute energy output, and cosmic ray flux. All of the solar parameters, including cosmic ray flux trend in OPPOSITE DIRECTION NEEDED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECENT WARMING. Why don't you r

It was funny because it was a brush off of a wacko. Of course, if you are the same sort of wacko, it won't be funny. But evidently enough people with mod points aren't 'no-such-thing-as-human-caused-climate-change' wackos to get the joke modded up. Doesn't that just piss you off?

Lol.. So if I don't agree with you I'm a wacko? Is that how it works. I guess I can see the funniness of it now. It is the "you have to believe what we believe to be taken seriously" joke right?

Whatever happened to science being about questions and answers and not some popular vote on how we worship this week? There is plenty of evidence suggesting that humans might not be the entire (sole) cause of global warming and there is plenty of it suggesting that we aren't the defining factor in it.

Doesn't that just piss you off?

No, what pisses me off is that people like you think you have found your holy grail and want to stop everyone else from looking. This is the most unscientific thing that could come from a group of people that claim science to the be basis of their beliefs and the answers to their problems. It actually takes a lot of scientific interpretations over to the religious like faith side of arguments. And you want to pretend that your interpretations of things are somehow better then everyone else's so they are wackos too incompetent to understand your positions and undeserving the entertainment of their own.

Three fourth the science behind global warming and humans being the cause of politically motivated. All the answers presented thus far stem with the desire to limit first world countries and promote third world countries by either direct payments or investments in infrastructure and industrial development. If someone as bright as you is completely convinces this isn't a scam of some sorts, fine. but what you want to believe and the evidence doesn't equal the same things. Keep your beliefs as solid as you want in something we actually know very little about. Keep on denying the chance that something you believe in could be wrong. Continue to act like a religious zealot in your beliefs and cast all non believers off as wackos not worthy of your cult. It doesn't bother me one bit at all. But it does make me think that there is a scam afoot more then ever.

BTW, I have some swamp land in Nevada for sale if your interested. It isn't swampy right now but it should be in the next couple hundred of years and you should be able to get some good productive use out of it between now and then. Assuming that your beliefs are true that is.

Follow the money and the motivation. Certain people make tons of money off the status quo, and thus have tons of money to throw around to influence the debate and the science. Scientists aren't rich, the liberals you think are trying to scam you aren't rich, and none of them have anything to gain by advancing the idea of global climate change. The people you support, the rich and powerful who would stand to lose the most from any changes to the global economy, they are the ones running a scam. Why are falli

Follow the money and the motivation. Certain people make tons of money off the status quo, and thus have tons of money to throw around to influence the debate and the science.

This alone isn't reason to refuse acceptance of any evidence, theories or deny any debate or conversation on the matter. The fact is there will always be another side to every argument and not everyone is out to get you even if they seem to be siding with your mortal enemies.

Scientists aren't rich, the liberals you think are trying to scam you aren't rich, and none of them have anything to gain by advancing the idea of global climate change.

Actually, it doesn't have to be about money. Political ideology is in and of itself just as powerful as religious dogma and as valuable to some as money. I have heard of people dieing for the causes they believe in and they won't collect money or power when they are dead. At the time global warming was first being pushed, there were groups attempting to get the US and other countries to use their influence to forgive the third world debt and it disappeared when the UN came out with the Kyoto accords.

Now if we follow the money and watch the debate, we can quickly see the an unterior agenda on the political side. We have groups sponsored by the UN which BTW was behind part of the forgive the third world debt push who's only goal was to find human causes for global warming. Now this isn't saying that it doesn't exist or that it isn't happening. But it is saying that there is political biases surounding the entire debate including anything coming from the IPCC. If somehow you have been blinded by that bias, I am sorry but you are no longer an objective observer in the debate. That is fine but don't let your prejudices sequester other ideas that might be more right or more wrong. If there is a problem, we won't get to the root causes of it and we will most assuredly miss the solutions. Dismissing dissent as wackos solely because they don't agree with you won't help you case. Before you know it, everyone but you will be a wacko.

The people you support, the rich and powerful who would stand to lose the most from any changes to the global economy, they are the ones running a scam.

Firs of all, what makes you think I support anyone in this? Is it because I called you out on your religiously fanaticism over the subject? I am not with you so I must be against you? And if I am against you I must be siding with your enemy? You have to be careful in your clumsy assumptions. right now it is you looking like the wacko more then the guy who suggested global warming might get a face lift.

Why are falling for such an obvious ploy?

And I ask you the same thing. I am willing to listen to the parts of the discusion that make sense. I am willing to listen to the answers that will have a meaningful effect. What I am not willing to do is follow the faith blindly and without questioning the one thing that sticks in my side, why does every question need to be silences as soon as possible? And BTW, there are far more enterprising ways of solving the problem is the human use of fossil fuels are the actual problem other then limiting what developed countries can do in the hope of propping up under developed countries. If dissent is such a scam, then why are these other solutions purposely buried in favor of carbon credits and exploiting third world countries? It would seem to be the scam, at least on the solutions side is what you are supporting. Surely in this modern day and age we can find ways of figuring out how to counter the effects of AGW without transferring wealth or putting severe economic barriers up. I am a simple idiot and I can think of several ways.

I really doubt you are in the 'rich and powerful' category, and you thus have little to lose if we do change the global economy.

the liberals you think are trying to scam you aren't rich, and none of them have anything to gain by advancing the idea of global climate change.

Um, you are aware that Al Gore is a partner in the largest carbon-trading firm in the world, aren't you? And that as such, he has a vested interest in promoting carbon offsets because it will make him rich? Not that he's doing so badly, collecting $25k-$100k for his speaking engagements, a big chunk of change from the Nobel committee, and a few bucks from "A Con

If you are a climate change skeptic, please spend a few days researching AIDS dissidents - you might find their research compelling. Google AIDS dissidents or AIDS rethinkers, and The Perth Group. The former AIDS researcher Rebecca Culshaw is also a very interesting place to start.

And I am constantly disheartened when I hear of this bullshit... even more painfully so, given my experience in the field of virology and immunology research.

Actually, I find "AIDS dissent", as you call it, far far more disturbing than the "9-11 Truth" conspiracy. At least in the case of "9-11 Truth", there remains at least SOME possibility for at least SOME of the minor claims of the conspiracy theorists. The case of "AIDS dissent" on the other hand, is rather similar to "gravity dissent".

P.S. As with any AIDS/HIV conspiracy theorist, I have a standing offer: inoculate yourself with 10X ID50 of purified HIV, and if you get a productive infection, but don't get AIDS, you get all my property, and the entire contents of my bank account... and I will quit biological science research. Deal?

I find the 9/11 "truth" movement particularly annoying. They've let themselves get mired in so much hysterical bullshit that they've made a phenomenal smoke screen protecting Bush and Co from their (in my opinion criminally negligent) handling of the event. At the very least, after the first plane went down, the others should have been blown out the sky by fighter planes. There was plenty of time, and it's not like the didn't know which planes were hijacked, but instead Bush just twiddled his thumbs and

Ha. The US Air Force has had a depressingly effective policy of not standing behind pilots that do things wrong. The effect this has on the service overall is "by the book" and getting verification of everything.Imagine if you will that you are at the controls of a fighter plane lined up behind a passenger aircraft that has been hijacked. One report of such a hijacking crashing into a building when for the last 40 years no hijack has resulted in loss of all of the passengers. OK, someone comes on the ra

Warning: From sources I'm too lazy too look up, I hear a very small percentage of people are not susceptible to the HIV virus. Granted the odds are low, but if some resistant bastard takes your money, well that would just suck. Of course if if they all did it...

Warning: From sources I'm too lazy too look up, I hear a very small percentage of people are not susceptible to the HIV virus. Granted the odds are low, but if some resistant bastard takes your money, well that would just suck. Of course if if they all did it...

I am aware of such cases, which is why I emphasized the requirement for a productive infection, thus requiring the virus to replicate efficiently, which isn't the case when CCR5 is mutated.

I have read a lot about mercury being linked to Autism. I remember reading something about a guy who was doing mercury decontamination to children with some positive effects*wasn't a complete cure but reduced the symptoms quite a bit). He was eventually jailed and lost his medical license because none of the treatments were FDA approved.

I think the mercury and lead links to autism have almost vanished since then. I wish I could remember his name.

Me, I think this is Y2K over again but far larger and we can't just stay up over night to get it done by the deadline. We saw Y2K coming and it wasn't an issue until a few years before the deadline. Naturally, when we averted most problems the activists got no glory and instead were thought of as confirmed alarmists.The world will not get it this time and we will just be lucky if the nicer projections become the future instead of the worst case ones. We shouldn't have gotten this close to the wire in the fi

There was some last-minute "political" editing going on to make things seem more dire, and more certain, than the research actually indicated.

Umm... is that why the Bush administration decided to remove every reference to manmade global warming, as well as projections of all negative effects of global warming from the last NOAA (or whatever it's called) reports? They were just correcting for the bias of the scientists that would receive so much money ($ 0.00) if they falsified the report to say that human

Umm... is that why the Bush administration decided to remove every reference to manmade global warming, as well as projections of all negative effects of global warming from the last NOAA (or whatever it's called) reports?

I don't doubt for a second that they did, and I never claimed that politicising the debate happened on only one side of the argument.

You can't resign from the debate because it's been politicized. You can, however, at least use Occam's Razor to figure out which side has more financial and power-related incentive to skew the facts... you can also look at primary literature to get an idea about the science itself, although it's unlikely you'll understand enough to interpret it - I cannot... I may have a graduate degree, but in a different science.

Much of what you say flies in the face of what I've heard from reputable sources. Can you back up your claims please? (Preferably without referring to a right-wing blog)You say that the IPCC report draws 'rather wild and rash conclusions from the data': is that your opinion, or the opinion of someone with qualifications? Because I've read the exact opposite: that the IPCC was deliberately cautious in their conclusions.

You say that 'a bunch of scientists who collaboration the IPCC report did not stand behind

Actually, 'climate change' is preferred instead of 'global warming' since it's very much possible that, while the average worldwide temperature is expected to increase, the temperature could decrease in some locations (Example: Gulf stream slowing down causing Europe to become colder)

If it is one thing we have learned from global warming is that sometimes it can lead to brief periods of global cooling - A Quote from a Global Warming DocumentaryLets just be honest shall we in saying that even after all the huge amount of data we have collected we know very little about what is going to happen as we move forward... Our arrogance in actually thinking we have control over what is going on I find quite interesting. Meaning, to me it is kind of like the 21st century version of the pope tryi

Well, my part of Europe (Netherlands) is definitely not growing colder. 12 years ago I moved from the middle of the country to the east part (Enschede, near Gronau). Back then winters with temperatures below -15 were not rare. We also used to have BIG thunderstorms with a LOT of rain falling in a short time. The sky would turn green before the rain, which was a sight to see. Now we have more rain but spread out over a lot of small showers. When there's snow (a normal occurrence in the years before the 1990s

No, scientists use the term "global climate change" because it more accurately describes what may happen in the future than "global warming." Yes, on average the surface of the earth has been getting warmer globally [nasa.gov], but it does not mean the entire world will just experience slightly warmer summers and winters. Just a few degrees centigrade has the ability to change ocean currents, wind patterns, and other natural events that regulate our climate.

I don't believe anyone is denying that there are natural non-man-made temperature cycles; that has minimal bearing on the fact that in addition to those we're having a massive effect on the climate. Pointing to a natural cycle doesn't somehow "prove" that we're not, it's not as if it's one or the other.

Of course it doesn't prove anything, but when the natural cycles appear to be so much more dramatic than what we're told is our effect, we might expect a higher level of proof before discounting nature's role. And blaming the majority on a single factor in such a complex system should throw up a few red flags of its own.

I must admit I haven't read any of the thousands of independent proper scientific papers that keep on showing over and over in multiple different domains and research areas and parts of the world that we have a serious mostly-man-made problem on our hands, so I can't really comment on the details - I presume you've read most of the papers, since you seem to understand how it works and why virtually every single climate model is flawed. Anyway, I nonetheless do think there is cause for at least a fair amount

I presume you've read most of the papers, since you seem to understand how it works and why virtually every single climate model is flawed.

Of course not. But that's beside the point. The burden of proof should be on the model makers, and when there are large discrepancies between real world observations and the key outputs of the models (such as their claim that upper atmosphere temperatures should be rising as fast or faster than surface temperatures) cannot be validated, I would tend to take any clai

I'm not making any claims to it but it seems to cover and summarize some of the reasons why we should be skeptical. It makes me wonder a few things. I have known this information for a while but I have never seen it presented like this.

I actually found it while doing a search to find out who all the scientist pushing global warming is and why they are supposed to be more right then wrong. As it turns out, this over whelming consensus is still the 1000 or so papers searched for anything s

I used to volunteer with Earth First, and let me tell you how it works. We scare the piss out of everyone, get them to donate billions of dollars, and spend all the money on hookers and blow. Pretty much standard operating procedure in liberal activist circles, don't you know.I mean, it's not like any of us were dirt poor, living out of our cars, and dumpster diving for food. Nope, we were all trust fund babies with millions in the bank who just wanted to piss off our rich industrialist parents. This whole

Yes, how can Big Oil possibly compete against all those super-rich scientists?

why would they compete against scientists? There are plenty of scientists on both sides of the debate. It's the politicians and bureaucrats who want to direct the billions who they'd be fighting against. I'm not arguing that oil lobbyists don't have more influence than is healthy, but so do those working against the oil companies.

If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of validity for some CO2 based AGW theories.

There are no more theories to test about carbon dioxide and its effects on global warming, are there? Al Gore and my local talk radio station both say 'the debate is over' and Al got the nobel prize for saying that, plus he invented the internet.

It's a sexy science with lots of money so there are lots of theories to be tested. We've still got plenty of junk science to fund. We still need a dozen studies on how oil and coal are good for us plus studies to show that CO2 is good for plants.

DO you have an issue with coal and oil? I mean a study saying that aren't bad doesn't mean they are good. It sounds more to me like your on the bandwagon simply to satisfy your desires concerning Coal and oil. Something that seems equally wrong and out of context.

That depends. Generally speaking, high solar activity is good because the ionosphere is ionised enough and deflects the radio waves better (that's why there's poor propagation in winter - less solar radiation reaches the more distant hemisphere due to longer nights and lower angle). However, too high activity causes interferences and distrupts communication. So it's the best when the Sun is moderately active.

More solar activity means better propogation at higher frequencies. For Example,
21 MHz, 28, MHz, and 50 MHz bands open up for long distance HF communication.
But during periods of low sunspot activity these bands may only be usable for local
communications.

Solar Cycle 24 has been the subject of much speculation due to competing forecasts on whether it will be a highly active or a quiet low cycle. If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of validity for some CO2 based global warming theories.

...but far more importantly, how long it will take until my shortwave reception improves.

Because it's convenient. Just as with the arbitrary number for the UNIX epoch, the Carrington rotation [wikipedia.org] number, the NOAA active region [nasa.gov] numbers, and the solar cycle number are just sequential starting at an arbitrary time.

(okay, ARs cycled at 10,000 in 2002 so it's only 4 digits, but it's still a sequence)

What worries me is that there are too many people out there who want to use Solar Cycle 24 to tie in with the end of the Mayan calendar on December 21, 2012.:-/ And there's good reason for this: the period right after the potential next peak of Solar Cycle 24--when we get the most solar flares and coronal mass ejections--could potentially be right around the December 21, 2012 time period.

That's no intro, that's text ripped directly from TFA - which is almost worse in a way. As for AGW, well, use your brain and have an educated guess. What's on everybody's mind these days? That's right, Global Warming. And what's the big debate around this? Right again, whether or not we're responsible for it, i.e. whether or not it's Anthromorphic.

Right again, whether or not we're responsible for it, i.e. whether or not it's Anthromorphic.

Well, anthromorphic isn't even a word. I'm sure you meant to type anthropomorphic, which would then mean that we're attributing human characteristics to global warming. That doesn't make much sense, though. The word you want is anthropogenic.

Conditions will start to improve. The best conditions will be in three to four years when sunspots peak. When the sunspots peak (and if you can receive single sideband), you will be able to hear hams from around the world using milliwatts. There will be times when you can hear all of the bands being active all of the time day and night.

No, because one has nothing to do with the other. If temperatures are increasing and the energy from the sun is decreasing, then we must be retaining the energy we get for longer periods of time. How would we do that? Greenhouse effect. What causes greenhouse effect? Mainly in our case, CO2, which is exactly what we are pumping into the air in large quantities. If anything, this observation would provide further evidence for climate change caused by humans.